The Good, The Bad And The Ugly – A Blue Analysis

Was it really only six days? Six days which have included Foygate, defeat at Loftus Road, a win but at a stretch and with another red card, the CPO vote and home defeat to Arsenal. I don’t know about you but I don’t know how many six day periods like that one I can take!

Time to hit the pause button, time to analyse where we are, what we’ve got and what we lack.

Obviously we are not on the FA’s favourite’s list. Foygate was shocking as was the FA’s failure to investigate and the media’s total disinterest in exploring why not. Although today’s ref was better (he had to be), questions still need asking, not least how Szczesny’s foul with the scores at 2-2 warranted any less punishment than Bosingwa’s far more innocuous one of last week. A game changer without doubt but what might be of more interest will be (I predict) the total silence from both FA and media over van Persie’s Nazi style salute to the Arsenal supporters after his second goal. Both the foul and the salute would be major talking points had Chelsea players been responsible for either.

But what of the internal; the manager and the squad at Chelsea?

My intention here is to take a fans eye view of some of what we have and to suggest where change is needed. Of course, not everyone will agree but a good discussion would be healthy.

Starting at the top with Andre Villa Boas, I was amazed to hear some Chelsea supporters on the platform at Football Broadway after the game today suggesting that he should go. My own view was (and is) that he should never have been given the job in the first place, however now he is here we should give him at least two seasons to shape the team in his image – unless things really go tits up!

Why did I think he shouldn’t have got the job? Experience. Not lack of experience based on age, I believe his success speaks for itself. What I questioned was his experience of dealing with adversity; for the manager we employed last summer has never had to manage a team through a ‘sticky patch’ and we therefore have no Way of knowing how or if he will cope when such a patch inevitably comes along. Mistake made, he has the job, let’s stick with him.

The defence has looked shaky all season and I’m sure I’m not alone in getting through more than my share of finger nails watching our defensive frailties thus far this season. Work is needed on tactical positioning not just in the defence but in a midfield which has, at times, left the back four woefully exposed. Remember 2005 and how we defended as a whole team? It seems a long time ago!

Other than that, we don’t look too bad! We play some nice flowing, attacking football. But is it winning football? Draw comparisons with Arsenal’s last Premiership away scalp (Blackpool) and you can soon see that such football should not be mistaken for good football and certainly not for successful football!

On the player front, we have more than a few passengers.

Top of most people’s passenger list seems to be Salomon Kalou and I don’t disagree but I made my feelings on Kalou clear earlier this month (‘Salomon Kalou? You’re Having A Laugh!). Today I want to look at some of the other components either not up to scratch or perhaps getting past their sell by date.

Top of my list is Jose Bosingwa. At times he looks quite stylish, he looks great going forward and has even been known to deliver a mean cross on occasion but Bosingwa is a right back and in that role he is perhaps average at best. Defensively he is often caught out of position, frequently loses his man and is not definitely not the world’s best tackler. It is time he was moved on and a replacement found. The club’s best right back is probably Ivanovic but he was needed in the middle today and the second best right back we have is out injured and, anyway, Michael Essien is of far greater value in midfield. Paulo Ferreira? Great servant but at this stage of his career no more than useful squad player. The right back slot has needed addressing for some time and must be sorted out in January, although I fear that will already be far too late to save this season. Not AVB’s fault, Ancelotti had two years to address it and failed, AVB has merely inherited it.

The next player in my sights might be more surprising; John Obi Mikel. Although he is regularly among the top passers in the Opta stats, he has failed to fill the role of holding midfield player adequately. His pass completion ratio may be north of 85% but of real concern is how many of the 15% are in critical areas of the pitch. The stats look good but the reality is he has a habit of leaving our back four exposed. His tackling is suspect too, on occasion looking great then seconds later clumsy. A genuine holding midfield player needs to be high on AVB’s January shopping list.

The paucity of defensive cover is highlighted by the above two players’ shortcomings and the lack of viable alternatives. Yes, Michael Essien is out and yes we do have four good centre backs (when David Luiz concentrates) but the weakness at right back and in front of the back four will inevitably leave us exposed several times a game.

Holding position aside, our midfield looks stronger than last season when it was the long term injuries to Lampard and Essien which, in my opinion, undid our campaign. Or, more accurately, the lack of genuine, quality cover. This season Ramires has looked improved, Lampard is getting back to his best (but will need more rests as he ages), Meireles is a bargain and, erm, well, Essien aside that’s it. Cover is provided by promising youngsters in the shape of McEachran and Romeu but they will need easing in to gain experience. Mata can play deeper than he has been but, In short, we are still short in the middle of the park and realistically only an injury or two away from real problems.

Up front, Kalou must go. Drogba, much though we have loved him, has had his best days and Anelka is a shadow of his former self. Malouda continues to lack consistency looking world class one minute and non-league the next (okay, a bit harsh but you understand my sentiment). Sturridge is definitely one for the future and is becoming one for now and, today aside, Torres is starting to look a little bit more like, well, Fernando Torres! I like the look of Lukaku but like McEachran and Romeu, he will need time.

Then there is Juan Mata. Sublime. By far the signing of the summer.

So, who should be shown the door?

Kalou, Bosingwa and Mikel; thank you but good bye. You are not Chelsea class.

Drogba and Anelka; thanks for the memories, it’s been a privilege to watch you play but your time has passed.

Desperately needed?

A decent right back and a world class holding midfield player plus another midfield player of quality to bolster squad size and strength.

Add to that a better coached team (not just back four) defensively and we aren’t a million miles away from where we need to be.

Without? I don’t think it’s good. My preseason prediction last season was that we would struggle to qualify for the Champions’ League. That we did qualify was down to Arsenal and Liverpool’s woeful performances rather than any quality of our own. This season we need to improve considerably or start preparing for the Europa League (or worse). The starting point in personnel is at right back and holding midfield and in coaching terms is to again start defending as a team.

KTBFFH

An Open Letter To Bruce Buck

Dear Bruce,

You have let yourself and our club down. You have deliberately ignored the genuine concerns of a number of Chelsea supporters. You have been shown to be manipulative in your dealings with the club’s support. You have failed in your responsibility to the club (and fans) as a member of the board. You have lost the confidence of the fans. It is time to do the honourable thing and resign.

By portraying the key issue of yesterday’s CPO shares vote as an issue of moving from Stamford Bridge to a new ground you missed the point completely and ignored the many voices very publicly trying to tell you that was not the case. Many of those who voted ‘no’ (including me) believe that a move from Stamford Bridge is inevitable, we just didn’t hear any evidence from you and your board as to why we should entrust you with the freehold of Stamford Bridge (and thereby the club’s future safety) to do so.

You tried to manipulate fans by painting the matter as that one issue; for or against moving. You even sank so low as to use Matthew Harding’s name in your campaign, apparently in full knowledge of his continued popularity among the Blue faithful thereby hoping to manipulate votes. Shame on you; it is to the credit of our fans that so many saw through you.

The main concern all along has been safeguarding the future security of Chelsea Football Club, something you are naive enough to believe that the presence of Roman Abramovich somehow secures. How little you know of the club’s history and how a previous owner, known to have the club’s best interests at heart passed away and the club fell into the hands of less interested parties. Or perhaps, since you like using Matthew Harding’s name, you will recall how suddenly and unexpectedly fate can strike? That during all of your campaign of spin and misinformation you have not once been able to point to the board’s plans for continuity to safeguard against future events or to demonstrate any meaningful succession planning shows you to be an incompetent Chairman leading an incompetent board. This is basic business planning and given the club’s history, anyone with any knowledge of the club would recognise the need for such plans.

As a result of your manoeuvrings of the past three weeks, what credibility you had among Chelsea fans has gone. You have shown yourself to lack basic business skills, to be manipulative and to be uninterested in the views of Chelsea supporters.

Please, show a little integrity, do the right thing and resign.

Yours,

Carefree_Blue@Yahoo.Co.UK

PS. I personally find your comments in yesterday’s television interviews in which you painted yourself as a long-time fan particularly distasteful. We were not born yesterday and many of us have been following the Blues since the days you thought football was a game played by people in padding with an egg shaped ball. We will be here long after you depart too. Please make that soon.

Resolving The Chris Foy Issue

It’s been a very big week for everyone who shares our Blue persuasion, and it’s not even Friday yet!

First we had Sunday. Plenty has already been written about the events during and after the game at Loftus Road and I’m adding my little bit below. But first, don’t we need a catchy phrase ending in ‘gate’ to describe the day? Isn’t that the way these days? How about ‘Hoopgate’ or ‘Racial abuse gate’?

No, I don’t like them either. Okay, let’s try ‘Antongate’ or ‘QPRfullofshitgate’? Still not doing it?

Well, I’m going to settle on ‘Foygate’ but I’ll come back to that in a mo because Sunday’s events turned out only to be Act One. The second act came at Goodison Park last night. I couldn’t make it up to the former City of Culture (?) and couldn’t find a live feed either so had to settle for Iain Dowie on Sky Sports News. Another red card, extra time and another failure to keep a clean sheet but at least we’re through.

Act Three came this afternoon with the CPO vote and the club failing to achieve (by 14%) the margin they required to win the vote. I say win, but this has been a process with no winner. Let’s hope the club will now listen to genuine concerns instead of ignoring fans and spinning irrelevancies.

But back to Foygate.

Was it me or did the media really just let it go, ignoring the worst refereeing performance I have seen in over forty years of watching football at all levels?

As the news rolled in that AVB was to be charged for his comments, the club was to be charged for failing to control our players, John Terry is being charged for abusing someone who took two days to figure out whether it was abuse or not……and so on. The theme has been clear and consistent; whatever happened it was all Chelsea’s fault.

Christ, I’ve been waiting for a knock on the door because I once wore a Chelsea shirt visiting a mate at MacKay House on White City, I mean, inciting a riot or what!

Seriously, what I’ve really been waiting (and waiting and waiting) for is the news that the FA is to investigate Chris Foy’s performance. But no; nothing.

The FA can fine the club and fine AVB (and no one doubts they will, there is no innocent until proven guilty here), but who is policing the FA’s performance? Who fines the FA when they fail to deal with refereeing of such a poor standard most park teams would have walked off the pitch in disgust?

Wait a minute though. There is a group of people who have a louder voice than they realise and who can ‘fine’ the FA. This group of people have the ability to hit the FA in the pocket until they start to take their responsibilities seriously. I’m one of them and, if you’re reading this, you probably are too.

I’m talking about the fans, that huge army of down trodden folk without whom the game could not even exist.

What can we do? Well, here is what I suggest. We boycott ALL officially licenced FA products. That simply means not buying England shirts and other merchandise until they agree to investigate Foygate, i.e. to act as if they actually are responsible for the game in England.

It might not cost them millions but it will make the point.

If they then don’t investigate we can make the point further by producing our own range of T-shirts, branded something like; ‘Supporting England - Not The FA!’

Foygate was not just a bad day at the office for the ref it was (and I make no apology for repeating this) the single worst performance by a referee I have witnessed in over forty years of watching football at all levels.

Given the way the FA and (by their silence) the media have abdicated their responsibility, if we don’t act; who will?

I’m starting today with a stand of one, will you join me?

I SUPPORT ENGLAND – NOT THE FA!

KTBFFH

A Long Ramble But Still No Sign The Club Are Listening

Chelsea FC today placed a long rambling article on their website which covered plenty of old ground in the CPO shares sale debate but offered absolutely nothing new.


The club repeated their original offer of 3rd October before repeating their 'questions asked' piece of 12th October.


As for adding anything new? Nothing!


As for answering the very pertinent questions raised in this blog and elsewhere? Nada!


As for showing any signs at all of having listened to the fans' concerns? Zip!


For example, they have stated; "Roman Abramovich's ownership and long-term commitment to the club removes the once  real danger that the team could find itself homeless or at a substandard ground, therefore we (the club) believe the CPO safeguard is no longer necessary."

Here is what I, and many others, have stated on numerous occasions; "The club might be secure and profitable now but that is no guarantee it will remain so, especially if Roman Abramovich is no longer involved and/or if Sky TV revenues are reduced in the face of less competition from rival bids by the cash strapped BBC (and others). Do you (the club) have any continuity plans in place should Roman (God forbid) meet a similar fate to Matthew Harding? If so, I’d like evidence before parting with my shares."


Draw your own conclusions as to whether the club have (a) listened to; (b) answered or (c) shown they give a rat's arse about the questions being asked. The issue of continuity planning is especially relevant as it goes to the very competence of the board we are supposed to be trusting to do the right thing!


For the record, at the foot of this blog I repeat what have been and remain the three key issues for me. None of them have been acknowledged or answered by the club. My vote will therefore be 'No' and I believe anyone who genuinely has the safeguarding of the club's future at heart must vote the same way.


It isn't about a new stadium (I'm for that). It isn't about trusting Roman (I believe he does have the club's best interests at heart). It is about the club's future and making sure it is properly safeguarded. The board still don't get that. 


The three key issues:

1. The club might be secure and profitable now but that is no guarantee it will remain so, especially if Roman Abramovich is no longer involved and/or if Sky TV revenues are reduced in the face of less competition from rival bids by the cash strapped BBC (and others). Do you have any continuity plans in place should Roman (God forbid) meet a similar fate to Matthew Harding? If so, I’d like evidence before parting with my shares.

2. Most shareholders did not purchase shares for purposes of profit. That does not mean offering a price which means they make an effective loss is a fair offer. In addition, as your reasons for wanting my shares are purely profit driven, I believe it is reasonable to ask that your offer reflects this.

      3.  I have yet to see a valid reason why the CPO ownership of the freehold cannot be transferred to any new stadium and the move be conducted in partnership. The reasons stated so far by the club do not bear close examination. Such a partnership protects the future, facilitates the move (Buck’s stated prime reason for wanting the shares) and in no way negatively impacts on the club’s profitability.

Chelsea Fans Have The Future In Their Hands - And Beneath Their Feet

A must read article by Sam Wallace from yesterday's 'The Independent.'


I make no comment, only suggest you click the link and give it a read.


You'll find it here.

A New Low

Following on from my blog of yesterday in which I considered the Board’s deliberate ignoring of the key points in their spin on their bid to buy CPO shareholders out, today saw a new low in their campaign of spin and issue avoidance.

An article on the official Chelsea website (so we assume it has been sanctioned by the club) quotes Graham Bell, a friend of Matthew Harding’s and long-time Blues supporter as well as CPO shareholder.

The article goes on (at length) about how Matthew Harding recognised that one day we would need to leave Stamford Bridge. While a minority of fans (including CPO shareholders) would resist this, the vast majority of those opposed to the clubs offer to buy shares recognise it is an inevitability.

The club know this so the question has to be asked as to the purpose of the article? I can only come to one conclusion; the Board know how loved Matthew Harding remains among the Chelsea faithful and therefore thought that somehow painting him as a someone who would have supported their proposal will win votes.

It is a new low and further undermines my confidence in the Board.

For the hard of understanding (i.e. the Chelsea Board), the three key points continually avoided by the club in their world of spin and issue avoidance are (and I make no apologies for repeating what I posted here yesterday):

1. The club might be secure and profitable now but that is no guarantee it will remain so, especially if Roman Abramovich is no longer involved and/or if Sky TV revenues are reduced in the face of less competition from rival bids by the cash strapped BBC (and others). Do you have any continuity plans in place should Roman (God forbid) meet a similar fate to Matthew Harding? If so, I’d like evidence before parting with my shares.

2. Most shareholders did not purchase shares for purposes of profit. That does not mean offering a price which means they make an effective loss is a fair offer. In addition, as your reasons for wanting my shares are purely profit driven, I believe it is reasonable to ask that your offer reflects this.

      3.  I have yet to see a valid reason why the CPO ownership of the freehold cannot be transferred to any new stadium and the move be conducted in partnership. The reasons stated so far by the club do not bear close examination. Such a partnership protects the future, facilitates the move (Buck’s stated prime reason for wanting the shares) and in no way negatively impacts on the club’s profitability.

Consulting with fans means listening to fans; the Board continue to fail to do this.

I’m still voting NO and following this latest low see even less reason to trust the club’s future to these jokers. They insult all of our intelligence.

KTBFFH

Buck, Tenenbaum, Gourlay – Missing The Point

When I decided to write my own Chelsea blog I had visions of stories about football, stories of current successes, great players, loved managers, the dark days, tales of 70s and 80s away days and more. I really didn’t think that my blogs would be ‘political’.

But, I chose to start blogging at about the same time Chelsea FC made their offer to the shareholders of CPO (of which I am one) and I got sucked in. Not because I enjoy the politics but because I care.

So, following on from last night’s ridiculous open letter to CPO shareholders which did everything but address concerns, I thought it might be useful for Messrs Buck, Tenenbaum and Gourlay if I spelt my objections out for them in very simple terms:

1.       The club might be secure and profitable now but that is no guarantee it will remain so, especially if Roman Abramovich is no longer involved and/or if Sky TV revenues are reduced in the face of less competition from rival bids by the cash strapped BBC (and others). Do you have any continuity plans in place should Roman (God forbid) meet a similar fate to Matthew Harding? If so, I’d like evidence before parting with my shares.

2.       Most shareholders did not purchase shares for purposes of profit. That does not mean offering a price which means they make an effective loss is a fair offer. In addition, as your reasons for wanting my shares are purely profit driven, I believe it is reasonable to ask that your offer reflects this.

3.       I have yet to see a valid reason why the CPO ownership of the freehold cannot be transferred to any new stadium and the move be conducted in partnership. The reasons stated so far by the club do not bear close examination. Such a partnership protects the future, facilitates the move (Buck’s stated prime reason for wanting the shares) and in no way negatively impacts on the club’s profitability.

If Buck, Tenenbaum and Gourlay would like to directly address these three points in their next open letter, I’m all ears. If they choose to continue to (apparently deliberately) avoid genuine concerns my vote remains one of No.

KTBFFH

(I should add that I have very little confidence in a board which cannot offer evidence of continuity planning. It is a basic principle of good business governance.)

Salomon Kalou? You’re Having A Laugh!

Stories have appeared in the press and online today in which Salomon Kalou has said he would like a new contract at Chelsea but stipulates that he wants more first team time if he signs.

Now I know Kalou has his admirers (I’m not one) but is he serious! Exactly where in the pecking order of striking options does he think he sits?

When we first signed him I remember thinking that he looked good; a good prospect that is. I thought the same the next season and the season after that. But when does a good prospect become someone who is not delivering on their talent?

It might just be an impression I have (I haven’t checked I confess) but he seems to score as many goals of his ankle, shin, knee and arse as he does using his feet. Yes, he does get goals but there always seems an element of surprise when he does. And he has missed some howlers too.

He seems a nice chap and all that. He’s not a bad player either but is he Chelsea material?

I think not. If I were AVB, unless he is happy to play the role of squad player, I’d let him go.

Is it a view shared by me? Consider a conversation I had with an Aston Villa supporting friend (I know) during the last transfer window.  He was moaning at the names they were letting go without replacement and, in particular, was worried about a lack of striking options.

“You can have Salomon Kalou,” I helpfully suggested. “God no. F*** off,” was his reply.

Nuff said?

KTBFFH

Clubs Rejection of SNCPO Offer Makes No Sense

The Guardian yesterday reported that Chelsea FC had rejected a counter offer to their offer to buy shares from the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO).

The Say No CPO (SNCPO) campaign had tabled the following counter-proposal to the club:

1 The club to have total freedom to move to a larger new stadium anywhere within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 so long as Roman Abramovich is still in control of Chelsea.
2. Chelsea to save £1.5m by leaving Chelsea Pitch Owners in place. The CPO will sell the freehold at SB to the club in exchange for the freehold at the new ground on the same terms as currently in place.
3. The club to agree to ongoing consultation, and transparency of information, with the fans regarding any new stadium.

Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck rejected the offer on the grounds that the club is now worth more than the freehold value of the site at Stamford Bridge. Without providing explanation to his thinking, he added that the club therefore argue there would be no long-term risk to the club's future, and that CPO's existence is therefore no longer required.

This is the single biggest flaw in the club’s offer, that they assume the current position is forever, to the point where (it appears) they have no plans at all in place should (for example) Roman Abramovich no longer be a factor, should market conditions change.

There is no guarantee of the club’s future financial well-being, only the hope that things will remain the same. And hope is no basis for sound planning.

Change is the only constant in life and neither Bruce Buck nor the rest of the board seem capable of grasping this. Sky TV money may not be forever; UEFA may change the rules again; new technological developments might come along; anything could happen, only a fool plans on solely hope.

If you don’t believe me ask someone who manufactures horse drawn carriages – they said the car would never take their place. Ask someone who makes a living selling VHS or Betamax if you can find one. You get the idea but do Buck and his board.

The nearest thing to a constant in football is the supporters and it is we who offer the best safeguard to the future. At Chelsea we are lucky to have the CPO, other clubs envy us. Are we really going to throw that away?

1970 FA Cup Final in 45 seconds!

Can never see those Ossie and Webbie goals too often!

Born is the King!


KTBFFH

CFC/CPO - DO THEY EVEN KNOW WHO THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE?

Given reports in the press that the CPO shareholder database is so out of date it includes people who have died, is it fair to suggest that no one knows who is and isn't a shareholder?

Take my case, I've moved house a few times, including stints overseas since buying my shares. I have no idea where my certificate is (last seen in the middle east in 2003). When I phoned to asked for proxy vote papers I was just asked for current address and sent them, there didn't appear to be any check in place that I am a genuine shareholder.

Now I have received my papers and there is no shareholder or reference number on them.
Do they know who actually is/isn't a shareholder?

Chelsea FC's Statement Still Leaves Questions Unanswered



Other Blues will undoubtedly have seen on the official website and possibly received the same email as me from the club which, it claims, answers the questions being asked re the CPO shareholder offer.

For those who haven't seen it, here is what the club say along with some of my own comments and observations:
________________________________________________________________________

In the week since Chelsea Football Club’s proposal to Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) was announced, there has naturally been a lot of discussion and the club believes there has been some incorrect information circulating on various social media platforms discussing the subject.

Below is a clarification of some of these points and also answers to some of the questions that have been put to the club in the past week.

Is it true that shareholders who do not attend the meeting nor appoint a proxy vote, including deceased shareholders, will automatically be counted as voting yes to the proposal?
This is not the case and has arisen from an incorrect media report. As a public limited company, CPO is governed by normal company law and for a vote to be counted either way, a shareholder has to attend or organise a proxy vote.

Have the directors of CPO accepted Chelsea FC’s proposal to acquire the freehold of the Stamford Bridge site and are the CPO directors recommending that CPO shareholders vote yes to the proposal?
This is a matter for CPO directors. However, the CPO directors have not accepted the proposal nor are they making a recommendation. It is Chelsea FC that is recommending that CPO shareholders vote yes to the proposal. The club informed the CPO directors that they had a proposal they would like to put to the shareholders and the CPO directors have stated that the shareholders should decide the future of Stamford Bridge. For this reason they have decided to convene a general meeting of CPO to allow the shareholders to consider the proposed transaction and decide on it. The CPO directors have not indicated to Chelsea FC or publicly how they will vote the shares they may own.

Isn’t the proposal against everything that CPO was set up for?
No. CPO was set up to stop property developers evicting Chelsea FC from Stamford Bridge against its wishes, which had been threatened during the 1980s and early 1990s. CPO was never intended to hinder the club by restricting its ability to maximise its income.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: This is only partially true. CPO was also set up to safeguard the club's future. A no vote does not hinder the club by restricting its ability to maximise its income provided the club will work with CPO on the need to find a new ground instead of making offers which give no evidence of safeguarding the clubs future, for example by explaining what plans are in place should a tragedy occur which removes the current ownership and places it in the hands of someone who does not have CFC's best interests at heart? A yes vote offers no such guarantees and forever removes the fans from having a guaranteed say in the club's future.

Why can’t the club wait until a site for a new stadium is known and reveal it before offering to purchase the Stamford Bridge freehold from CPO?
Because no owner of a potential site would enter into extensive negotiations or agree a deal with Chelsea FC unless it knew the club could deliver on that deal, and the club couldn’t guarantee completion of the deal without certainty over the subsequent redevelopment of Stamford Bridge.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: This barrier would be removed if the club and CPO worked in partnership on the process. With CPO around the table the owner of the potential site could receive the guarantees they receive. Property development is frequently conducted using partnerships in this way. A no vote keeps the fans at the table with a say in the suitability of potential sites. A yes vote removes any rights from the fans and while a 3 mile radius is talked of, Wimbledon fans will remember similar talk in the days leading up to 'Franchise FC's' move to Milton Keynes.

Why is the club not informing shareholders about which site it wishes to build a new stadium on?
Because a decision to leave Stamford Bridge has not been taken and no new site has been chosen.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: In what line of business would shareholders agree to sell shares on the promise of nothing. A no vote keeps us at the table and, if the club understand business, should involve us in the process. A yes vote is a vote with the fingers crossed and no guarantees, see Milton Keynes comment above,

Why has the club set a year 2020 limit to the guarantee that any new stadium will be within a three-mile radius of Stamford Bridge?
Because the club believes that by 2020 all available sites within three miles will have gone. If we are unable to secure one of those sites, and did eventually decide that leaving Stamford Bridge would be in the best interests of the club and its fans, then sites further afield than three miles may be the only option. The club’s objective is to remain at Stamford Bridge or move to a new stadium within three miles.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: Again, no guarantees. It is "the club's objective". If 2020 is a ket date (of which the club offer no evidence) then let's work together to make it happen. Vote no and keep the fans involved in safeguarding the club. Vote yes for anything could happen next and we will have given away our right to a say.

There are suggestions that the club is considering sites more than three miles to the north of Stamford Bridge, near Wormwood Scrubs or Old Oak Common, with a view to moving there after 2020. Has the club already identified a site beyond the three-mile radius?
No such sites have been looked at or discussed. The club’s objective is to remain at Stamford Bridge or move to a new stadium within three miles.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: See previous comment.

Has the club received an offer from developers to buy Stamford Bridge?
No, we have never received such an offer, nor have we ever had informal discussions with any developer on the subject.

Can the club provide proof that possible expansion of capacity at Stamford Bridge has been properly investigated?
The club has reports and studies from as early as 2003/04 on various aspects of a redevelopment of the stadium and has spent a considerable amount of time and money in looking at various aspects of a redevelopment. The bottom line is a redevelopment adding a significant number of seats needs a site of 16 to 18 acres or more, and at Stamford Bridge there are less than 12 acres.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: Oh? That's a new one. The reason always previously stated as to why Stamford Bridge couldn't be re/further developed was because of a lack of access/egress points due to the geography of the site. In an emergency the only exit is to Fulham Road. This new line doesn't hold water - Newcastle's St James' Park has a smaller footprint than Stamford Bridge but a larger stadium capacity. Vote no until the uncertainty is cleared. Vote yes for a future full of such uncertainty. This notwithstanding, the case for a new stadium is a strong one and the club make fair points below. They just don't need to buy out CPO to achieve this!

The club has worked with several architects firms looking for ways to redevelop each of the four stands at Stamford Bridge to increase capacity.

If the East Stand, which was built in the early 1970s, were to be knocked down and redeveloped then there are two significant obstacles. A new stand would have to cantilever over the railway track. Standards regarding safety have changed since the early 1970s. The angle of the current stand is very steep but if it were rebuilt then the angle would have to be shallower to meet today’s standards, with many seats significantly further from the pitch than they are now.

The Shed End stand at the south of the stadium cannot be expanded because of the hotel and the flats behind it. Rights to light and shadowing issues also preclude such a development.

For the Matthew Harding Stand at the north of the stadium, health and safety rules requires that in an emergency the whole site is cleared in eight minutes and we are restricted with Fulham Road being our only exit. Any additional people at the north end would have to go the furthest to reach the Fulham Road exits, so it is very unlikely planning permission would be granted, as we are virtually at our capacity limit for emergency egress. Rights of light and overshadowing issues for Brompton Park residents also cause planning difficulties.

Over the years it has been suggested a walkway should be built along the railway lines from the north end of the stadium towards West Brompton. That has been looked into, and was rejected at a public inquiry as the long narrow route is considered unsafe in the event of an emergency. We have not applied for planning permission for a walkway to Fulham Broadway station as the council has already said they would reject it for safety reasons.

The West Stand is of a height that is already the maximum allowed by planning regulations, in terms of rights of light overlooking the Stoll Foundation housing.

The club has looked at tearing down all four stands and at turning the direction of the pitch by 90 degrees but neither plan makes sense because again it should be emphasised that the site is less than12 acres and it is generally considered that to build a stadium from scratch with a capacity of 55,000 then approaching 20 acres is needed. A major reconstruction at Stamford Bridge also raises issues as to where the club would play during the two or three seasons that Stamford Bridge would not be available.

As well as buying back the freehold, is the club also proposing to buy back the name Chelsea Football Club from CPO?
As the original agreement makes clear, CPO has never owned the name Chelsea Football Club. The name would only ever move across into CPO ownership should the club leave Stamford Bridge without the consent of CPO.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: Am I repeating myself? If we worked in partnership we could leave Stamford Bridge with the blessing/goodwill of the fans, the CPO still having a safeguard on the club's future and the club having a new stadium. Why the need to remove the future proofing provided by the CPO? Where is the club's continuity planning?

What are the details of the season tickets being offered to shareholders in a new stadium should one be built?
The club is not simply offering season tickets. It is offering shareholders voting yes the chance to have a priority choice on where their season ticket seat would be located.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: CPO should take legal advice on this offer. It might break the Bribery Act (2010) in the way it seeks to gain an advantage. If so, the Directors of CPO might also be break the law by facilitating its happening.

Why are only three weeks being allowed between the notice of the meeting and the vote, and why has the meeting and vote been set for the day after an evening away game at Everton which shareholders may be attending?
Company law provides for 21 clear days’ notice but 23 days have been provided to be sure there is sufficient time. The club believes, as does the Companies Act, that three weeks is sufficient time to hear both sides of any argument and for a shareholder to come to a decision and this is normal for all corporate general meetings.

BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: While true it would be common courtesy for the club to recognise that CPO shareholders hold down jobs and will need to take time off work in order to attend, some without pay. It would be considerate to think about the fans, many of whom are not the usual shareholders and corporate types this law was designed to service. Such lack of consideration does not bode well for a post CPO world where the fans say and safeguard has been removed. Vote no and if you can't make it, make sure you cast your vote by proxy.

The date was set well before the Carling Cup draw and the date of the game was arranged. It was not known at the time whether the tie would be home or away or on the Tuesday or the Wednesday.

What is the percentage vote needed for the proposed transaction to be accepted?
75 per cent or more of shareholders attending the meeting or sending a proxy vote must vote yes for the transaction to go ahead.

What will happen to Peter Osgood’s ashes which are currently under the penalty spot at the Shed End of Stamford Bridge?
Peter’s widow Lynn would of course be consulted over this matter and the club has not agreed to move but if it did it would consider transferring the urn and a small part of the old stadium pitch to the new one as a commemoration.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: "the club has not agreed to move" - come on, this whole thing is about moving and now, in the club's own words they admit that Ossies ashes had not been considered, no plan exists for what to do with them and Lynn Osgood has yet to even be consulted! Do these sound like the sort of people whoplan beyond the end of their noses let alone for ALL possible eventualities? To me neither. Vote no, safeguard the future.
_________________________________________________________________________

The club should be thanked for attempting to clarify the situation but it should be remembered that there are rarely only two routes to progrees (or stand still) as appears. The club should remember that the fans were here long before any of the current board and will be long after they depart. In spirit if not in law, we are the club. The boards hould stop being so arrogant and look to work in partnership with CPO. A move and the existence of the CPO are not mutually exclusive.

One last thought - the Directors of CPO have a legal responsibility to act in their shareholders bst interests. Let us hope they remember that responsibility!

VOTE NO!

Buck Is Right But More Detail Needed For Yes Vote

Today's Daily Mail features a short story in which Bruce Buck talks of the importance of preparing for life without Roman, especially in light of the new UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules.

In the article Buck talks of the need to balance the books and includes the need to increase revenues through sponsorship, transfer fees and ticket sales.

Given that ticket prices are already a touchy subject, with some Blues threatening to boycott the Genk game in protest, the answer to increasing ticket revenues would appear to be increased capacity. As this is not possible at the Bridge inevitably it will mean a new stadium.

Which brings me to the hot topic among Blues fans at the moment, the club's offer to Cheslsea Pitch Owner shareholder to buy them out.

I make no secret of being in the vote No camp for now. Don't get me wrong I agree with Buck's statement in The Mail but it just doesn't give me the confidence to believe the future is safeguarded.

I posted Cowan Global's excellent blog on the subject yesterday and I see nothing to change my view that they are right. What is more, as a corporate strategy consultancy, I trust their judgement and I have yet to see any forward planning expertise from the Chelsea board which engenders the same trust. We, the CPO shareholders don't need statements from the Chelsea board we need guarantees. We don't need promises, we need evidence of continuity planning.

For many Chelsea fans words like 'Cabra' are still painful ones, words which bring back the fear we had of losing our club forever. The CPO saved us and the CPO still has a vital role to fulfill.

I've seen a view posted on a few sites asking why Chelsea can't work in partnership with the CPO to find a site for a new stadium? Why can't the deal be that we swap one freehold for another? This offers the same safeguards which were needed to save us before should the same or similar occur in the future. It provides for increased revenue from higher ticket sales and the ground rent could be just as 'peppercorn' as now.

My position is still therefore; Vote No.

Great Blog On CFC Offer To CPO

Came across this blog written by the Cowan Global blog. I like how it looks at the Chesea offer to the CPO. Have to agree, no sale without (serious) guarantees!

Chelsea FC and the Chelsea Pitch Owners - More Details Please

Welcome To Blue Is The Colour

I've been thinking about having my own Chelsea blog for a while and today, a no Premiership day (international break) I thought I should actually get round to it.

What can you expect? Nothing Chelsea is off limits so it will be a pretty mixed bag. Feel free to comment, agree, disagree or maybe not give a sh*t!

For starters, how about something from 'The Legend'?